S65 engine weight - and some surprises!

[JEllis]

All great engines!

And good info!

Jason

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by wheatpaste

Keep in mind that the architecture of the S65 and the small block Chevys are completely different. S65 is DOHC, while the Chevy engines are just single cam OHV.

The additional cams and valvetrain of the S65 adds a lot of weight.

The 5.0L coyote engine is more similar to the S65 in this regard, which is probably a good reason why it weighs similarly.

+1
Also the S65 has 8 individual throttle bodies that gives that amazing throttle response.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by US///M3

+1
Also the S65 has 8 individual throttle bodies that gives that amazing throttle response.

and sound!

man looking at those engines. gets me excited love the look of a V8 engine. its just in my american blood.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

I'm sure there is a little more chassis rigidity but the E9X used more aluminum, the fenders are plastic, more FRP aka CF...we're not even talking about the DCT. Oh and lighter suspension components.

Just an observation rather than a complaint...more lightweight materials but heavier curb weight. The fact is the M3 is just about the lightest 4 seat sports sedan that you can ACTUALLY fit 4 adults in.

Where in the chassis does the E9x use more aluminum than an E46?

The E9x is a bigger car but that doesn't make it heavier, what it's made out of does.
As far as the 458 and 991 GT3 engines making more torque, they are also newer engines than an S65. That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but then again none of the engines compared in this thread are.

[Someone?]

The Ford 5.0 is much better then the Pushrod engines Chevy offers, Chevy engine is pretty similar to what they offered in the 1960's on.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by ibmike

The Ford 5.0 is much better then the Pushrod engines Chevy offers, Chevy engine is pretty similar to what they offered in the 1960's on.

in what way ? i love the push rod motors for there reliability, cheap to mod and fix. easy to mod etc... they also make great power. one of the most swapped motors

what i am missing ?

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by ibmike

The Ford 5.0 is much better then the Pushrod engines Chevy offers, Chevy engine is pretty similar to what they offered in the 1960's on.

Dude that's not true at all. The chevy small block is only superficially similar to a 60s small block, i.e. it has a 90 degree V8 with overhead valves and pushrods. But it makes twice as much power, it gets 50% better mileage, and it weighs 150 lbs less than a 60s small block.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

Dude that's not true at all. The chevy small block is only superficially similar to a 60s small block, i.e. it has a 90 degree V8 with overhead valves and pushrods. But it makes twice as much power, it gets 50% better mileage, and it weighs 150 lbs less than a 60s small block.

i think the reason he thinks its better is because its got more fancy stuff in it. but that doesnt make it better

[Someone?]

Yah pushrods are good that's why all the HP cars companies reverted back to pushrod engines, NOT, its almost 2014 broski, time for chevy to lose the PR's.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by ibmike

Yah pushrods are good that's why all the HP cars companies reverted back to pushrod engines, NOT, its almost 2014 broski, time for chevy to lose the PR's.

i am not saying they are good or better. i am just saying there is nothing wrong with them. GM has made some great V8s with them.

in fact the new stingray is a direct injected pushrods V8 engine. that is going to get great MPG and most likely more reliable than anything with a M badge on it.

if you ask me personally . i would rather be driving a 6.2L V8 over a 3.0L TT I6 that gets the same on gas.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by xfirer1guy

Its a trade off. Longer stroke = more torque => lower revs. It comes down to mean piston speed. It all conforms to that thing called physics and metallurgical limits.

I expect you to come back with some S54 specs next, but 7900 redline is not an 8750 redline. The S65 revs over 10% higher than the S54.

I said 8K and that's 750rpm from said 8750rpm -pretty close IMO.

Nah, i'd come back and say that a 86mm stroke in a pushrod NASCAR engine revs to 10K


In all seriousness, the fact that the Coyote V8 makes ~100hp/L and 78lb-ft torque/L (vs 73.75lb/L for the S65) makes it a pretty impressive motor.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Billj747

I said 8K and that's 750rpm from said 8750rpm -pretty close IMO.

Nah, i'd come back and say that a 86mm stroke in a pushrod NASCAR engine revs to 10K


In all seriousness, the fact that the Coyote V8 makes ~100hp/L and 78lb-ft torque/L (vs 73.75lb/L for the S65) makes it a pretty impressive motor.

no question the 5.0L is a nice. although i still prefer the S65. for sound and higher revs. also gives a different driving feel. sure the low end power of the 5.0L is nice, but the same typical V8 feel.

i really don't get impressed with motors anymore. there is nothing ford did that BMW couldn't do. and vice versa. it comes down to what style of motor you want.

[Someone?]

Originally Posted by Ezio

no question the 5.0L is a nice. although i still prefer the S65. for sound and higher revs. also gives a different driving feel. sure the low end power of the 5.0L is nice, but the same typical V8 feel.

i really don't get impressed with motors anymore. there is nothing ford did that BMW couldn't do. and vice versa. it comes down to what style of motor you want.

Yah them pushrod engines can be pretty good(my 2013 GMC has um)

The Biggest thing that separates BMW from American muscle more then anything IMO is the Trans, ALL America NON Manual's have CRAPPY Transmissions! which i refer to as Crapmissions, Honestly if Ford/Chevy offered a DCT upgrade people would eat um up, For Sure regardless of the 3k upcharge, they would sell the crap outta um.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by ibmike

Yah them pushrod engines can be pretty good(my 2013 GMC has um)

The Biggest thing that separates BMW from American muscle more then anything IMO is the Trans, ALL America NON Manual's have CRAPPY Transmissions! which i refer to as Crapmissions, Honestly if Ford/Chevy offered a DCT upgrade people would eat um up, For Sure regardless of the 3k upcharge, they would sell the crap outta um.

DCT is coming to vettes. GM already has one in the works

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by xfirer1guy

Its a trade off. Longer stroke = more torque => lower revs. It comes down to mean piston speed. It all conforms to that thing called physics and metallurgical limits.

Not true. This is a common misconception.

For a given displacement, torque is independent of the bore/stroke relationship.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by ibmike

Yah them pushrod engines can be pretty good(my 2013 GMC has um)

The Biggest thing that separates BMW from American muscle more then anything IMO is the Trans, ALL America NON Manual's have CRAPPY Transmissions! which i refer to as Crapmissions, Honestly if Ford/Chevy offered a DCT upgrade people would eat um up, For Sure regardless of the 3k upcharge, they would sell the crap outta um.

We'll see what America comes up with for the collaborative 8-10spd automatic transmission effort.

[the_road_less_traveled]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Not true. This is a common misconception.

For a given displacement, torque is independent of the bore/stroke relationship.

You sir are wrong. What is the basic equation for torque? You learned this in first semester physics. Torque = force x distance. The force here is the pressure exerted on the top of the piston and transferred via the con rod to the crank journal. The distance is the measure from center of force to the center of moment on the crank, aka crank stroke.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by xfirer1guy

You sir are wrong. What is the basic equation for torque? You learned this in first semester physics. Torque = force x distance. The force here is the pressure exerted on the top of the piston and transferred via the con rod to the crank journal. The distance is the measure from center of force to the center of moment on the crank, aka crank stroke.

If you study a bit longer, in the subsequent semesters of an engineering degree, you learn a bit more on the intricacies of a piston engine:

As you stated,

T=F x d

Where the force is defined by the cylinder pressure acting on the piston area (P x (B/2)^2 x pi) and the distance is the vectorial product of the half stroke relative to the crank position (S/2 x sin(Teta)). Hence:

T = P x (B/2)^2 x pi x S/2 x sin(Teta)

Where:
T=Torque
P=Cylinder pressure
B=Bore
S=Stroke
Teta=Crank angle with Teta=0 at TDC

What is interesting is that due to the geometric characteristics, any increase in stroke for a given displacement will be negated by the same exact amount by the bore reduction. For a given cylinder pressure, torque is therefore displacement dependent only regardless of the bore and stroke relationship. To demonstrate this, take the definition of displacement and substitute it in the torque formula:

D = (B/2)^2 x pi x S

and Torque becomes:

T= P x D/2 x sin(Teta)

Tada , torque depends on cylinder pressure, displacement and crank angle only. No bore or stroke.

I might have been out of engineering school 20 years now, but I remember those concepts very well; they were my favorite classes .

[Someone?]

Originally Posted by Ezio

DCT is coming to vettes. GM already has one in the works

If they really pull the trigger it will take the Vette(and there whole performance line im sure) to ah Whole new Level and will attract a whole new customer base to them, Including Maybe me, after all not offering a DCT is the only reason im not getting a Stingray.
Man a Vette with a DCT, wow cant wait!

[the_road_less_traveled]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

If you study a bit longer, in the subsequent semesters of an engineering degree, you learn a bit more on the intricacies of a piston engine:

As you stated,

T=F x d

Where the force is defined by the cylinder pressure acting on the piston area (P x (B/2)^2 x pi) and the distance is the vectorial product of the half stroke relative to the crank position (S/2 x sin(Teta)). Hence:

T = P x (B/2)^2 x pi x S/2 x sin(Teta)

Where:
T=Torque
P=Cylinder pressure
B=Bore
S=Stroke
Teta=Crank angle with Teta=0 at TDC

What is interesting is that due to the geometric characteristics, any increase in stroke for a given displacement will be negated by the same exact amount by the bore reduction. For a given cylinder pressure, torque is therefore displacement dependent only regardless of the bore and stroke relationship. To demonstrate this, take the definition of displacement and substitute it in the torque formula:

D = (B/2)^2 x pi x S

and Torque becomes:

T= P x D/2 x sin(Teta)

Tada , torque depends on cylinder pressure, displacement and crank angle only. No bore or stroke.

I might have been out of engineering school 20 years now, but I remember those concepts very well; they were my favorite classes .

I can tell you this, during graduate level experimentation labs I ran Ricardo experiments (the engine emulation software a lot of OEM's use during development) varying different engine parameters. Bore and stroke were 2 or the 3. The results conclusively confirm bore and stroke in fact alter torque and hence power output. I only altered one variable at a time so it was clear each components contribution. Ricardo doesnt lie. Its the most professional suite offered as far as I know.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by xfirer1guy

I can tell you this, during graduate level experimentation labs I ran Ricardo experiments (the engine emulation software a lot of OEM's use during development) varying different engine parameters. Bore and stroke were 2 or the 3. The results conclusively confirm bore and stroke in fact alter torque and hence power output. I only altered one variable at a time so it was clear each components contribution. Ricardo doesnt lie. Its the most professional suite offered as far as I know.

There, you said it.

The basic presumption is FOR A GIVEN DISPLACEMENT

So if you increase stroke, you need to decrease bore to maintain the displacement constant.

By only increasing stroke, you are also increasing displacement. The increased torque is a resultant of the increased displacement, not the increased stroke.

[the_road_less_traveled]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

There, you said it.

The basic presumption is FOR A GIVEN DISPLACEMENT

So if you increase stroke, you need to decrease bore to maintain the displacement constant.

By only increasing stroke, you are also increasing displacement. The increased torque is a resultant of the increased displacement, not the increased stroke.

So Pressure = Force/Area. Rearranged F = PA => Force is directly PROPORTIONAL to area, or pi*(Bore/2)^2.